A1, the thrower-in, releases the ball for her throw-in. B1 reaches across the out-of-bounds line and touches the ball before the ball crosses into in-bounds territory. Do you treat this the same way as if B1 as if B1 reached across the line and hadn't touched the ball (with a warning and a T for the next time B reaches across)?

If not, how do you handle this?

There's no concensus on this; it depends on how you (or your assigner, etc.) read the rules.

It's either a legal play, or a T for touching the ball before it crosses the boundary.

Why is this action left up to the discretion of a ref or his assignor? Rule 10-3 Art. 11 clearly states that it is a T if a player reaches through the throw-in boundary line plane and touches or dislodges the ball. It doesn't say that the ball must still be in the thrower's hands. A T is also merited if A1 OOB tosses to A2 OOB (after a goal by B) and B1 reaches across the line and touches ball in flight.

The Technical Foul Summary on page 76 again states that it is a player T for reaching through to touch or dislodge the ball. I have been taught this as a black and white situation. Are others finding this a gray area?

However, as Bob pointed out on the McGriff board, this year's FED rulebook made an unannounced change to 9-2 PENALTY 3. It now reads that it's a technical foul to touch the ball on the OOB side of the plane "while in possession of the thrower" or while it's being passed between OOB teammates.

This change makes the more popular interpretation (viz., there's no infraction once the throw-in pass has been released) also the more likely.

I use NCAA women's rules (modified slightly for use in HS).

The situation of B1 reaching out-of-bounds and slapping the ball from A1's hands is explicitly covered (10-3.19, AR 9a) as is the case where B1 touches the ball being passed between out-of-bounds teammates after a score (7-6.5b AR 17 and 10-3.19 AR9b) as an indirect technical for delaying the game. Reaching through the plane is a violation (7-6.5b and 9-4.5). However, reaching through the plane and touching the ball after A1 has released the ball for a direct throw-in is not mentioned.

9-4.5 reads: The opponents of the thrower-in shall not have any part of their person beyond the vertical inside plane of any boundary line before the ball has crossed that boundary line.

I conclude from this that the situation I described can't be legal and is at least a violation. (NF rules may differ on this.)

Further comments, esp. from those who ref with NCAA rules? I'd like to know best how to deal with this...

[Edited by Lotto on Dec 9th, 2003 at 08:45 AM]

NCAA 9-4-5 says that no opponent of the thrower shall have any part of his/her body across the OOB plane until the ball has crossed the plane and come inbounds. Under NCAA, I would call the violation if the defender touched the ball before it came inbounds. (He had to be across the line before he touched the ball, right?)

Obviously you cannot "dislodge" a ball that is in flight. The ball must be held to be dislodged. To me the rule obviously says the defense cannot reach across the plane to disrupt the actions of the thrower. Once the ball is out of his hands anything is possible without violation. It is now an act of defense and not subject to penalty (unless it is a pass to another teammate that is also out of bounds).

Sounds like Chuck has also found a clarification that says something similar to above.

That's a good argument, but the same reasoning would hold for B1 who touches the ball when it's still in A1's hands, or being passed to out-of-bounds A2 after a score. In these cases we have a T.

From now on, I'll probably call a violation and warn so that the next reaching through by B is a T (whether or not they touch).

Players would make reffing so much easier if they just obeyed all the rules! :)

Yes, b/c we're specifically told to call it that way. FED 10.3.11A. But if that case play were not there, we'd be having this same conversation about touching the ball in the hands of the thrower.

Actually, this is not strictly true...even considering the unannounced rule change that allows. The offense may not touch the ball until it crosses the line. While rules now seem to indicate that it is permitted to do so, it hardly seems equitable the the defense is permitted access to a ball which hte offense is prohibited from touching. (9-2-3)

Practicing a little revisionist history? :)

I don't remember either side of this debate being more popular.

This unannounced rule change does, however, end the debate....it is nothing for the defense to touch the ball on the OOB side of the line once the throw-in pass is release.

From the last time that this was argued, the people who said that the touching was legal relied on R9-2-2. They said that the throw-in had started when the ball left the hands of the player throwing it in,and then the throw-in was legally touched a defender who had in-bounds status, by rule(both feet in bounds). That's where the grey area comes in.

That takes care of NF. But what about NCAA?

Practicing a little revisionist history? :)

I don't remember either side of this debate being more popular. [/B][/QUOTE]
NO!! Camron, I was on your side of this argument. And we were right, too. :) But I'm pretty sure that we were wayyyyyyy out-numbered.

Violation, Lotto. NCAA 9-4-5. See my post above.

How does it end the debate,Camron? :confused: R9-2-3Penalty3 does not refer in any way to a throw-in that has been released towards the court. It only refers to a player holding the ball OOB, or a player <b>passing</b> the ball along the end line OOB to another player. That passing play is <b>not</b> a throw-in pass. A released throw-in towards the court is not mentioned at all.

No, JR, but it does seem to clarify that the T is for touching the ball in those two circumstances. So if the ball is not in one of those circumstances, it seems to say that it's not a T to touch it.

No, JR, but it does seem to clarify that the T is for touching the ball in those two circumstances. So if the ball is not in one of those circumstances, it seems to say that it's not a T to touch it. [/B][/QUOTE]And other posters say that it <b>doesn't</b> seem to cover a throw-in though, because R9-2-2 covers that. The language is ambiguous, Chuck. That's why this has been debated on and off for months now.

Personally, you can put me down as opposing whatever side you happen to take. Nothing personal, but you're a BoSox fan. That means that you really don't have much of a chance of ending up on the winner's side of anything.

Precisely. It now declares that the T is for touching the ball when being passed outside the endline and when being held by the thrower. Before it said it was a T for touching the ball across the line (without the qualification about it being held or not). Even though I was on the other side and still think it is the "fair" thing to do, the rule clearly no longer prohibits it since it explicitly states "while being held" (paraphrase).

I'd like to see a casebook play...A1 has the ball for a throw-in on the endline. He/she backs up 10 feet to heave a pass. The ball is released for the throw-in and the defender (keeping his/her feet totally inbounds) intercepts the throw-in before the ball crosses the boundary-line plane. In high school ball, are we allowing that or not??? Can we reach any kind of consensus here?

We haven't reached any consensus the last umpteen times we've discussed it.

True, but 9-2-P3 has now been changed. I, who was on the side of it being a T for touching the ball before it crossed the line, have accepted that the rule as now written does not support that view (whether I like it or not).

Since it is clearly not prohibited in the rules now, it must be legal.

I think we are, considering this rule change, much closer to a consensus now.